One is that BBC director-general Mark Thompson's wife Jane is Jewish and a "fanatic" Zionist. (Wikipedia says she is Jewish, and they're raising their kids as Catholics; hard to square with Z'ism).
Second that BBC is reliant on American advertising and therefore... Well, I don't know.
Both theories seem very weak to me. I would expect it to be the result of some tough lobbying by israeli embassy/other officials who have probably accused the BBC of being biased for daring to show the gaza devastation without each report "balanced" by one showing israeli anguish. (that's the only kind of proportion they favor)
Brits feel strongly about the Beeb's objectivity because they pay a swingeing license fee of £139.50 (about $200) per television. Wonderfully, though, the fee is halved if you're blind.
link to bbc.co.uk
Given that quite a bit of TV content is now available on the Internet, the Beeb looks like another braindead media monopoly due for sudden extinction.
Goodbye and good riddance.
The first link provides no evidence for his wife being a "fanatical Zionist", but it does say this:
"The glaring disregard for human suffering, however, can only be explained by Mark Thompson’s close relationship with Israeli leaders. In 2005, Mr. Thompson broke all rules of independent journalism when he travelled to Jerusalem and met former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in order to “build bridges” between the BBC and Israel. This unprecedented move was not covered by Western media, but the Israeli press gave it significant importance."
The second link provides no hard evidence for the advertising theory (though frankly I'd imagine it's very hard to connect those dots). It too, however, mentions Thompson's visit to Israel and his wife's fondness for Israel, as well as some other tidbits:
"Thus came the first of a couple of humiliating concessions to Israel by the BBC. In November 2003, the then director of the BBC World Service, Mark Byford, paid a visit to Israel which culminated in “a joint declaration on a commitment to objective coverage of Middle East events” and the appointment by the corporation of a special adviser on Middle East affairs, Mark Balen, to insure that Israel’s viewpoint was always represented, if not given primacy, in news and current affairs coverage. In return, and to save the BBC’s face, Israel agreed to lift a boycott it had instituted after the corporation screened the programme "Israel's Secret Weapon," about Israel's un-inspected nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities.
Before leaving Israel, Mr Byford assured his new Zionist friends that this was not a one-off concession by the BBC. "We will maintain an ongoing dialogue, at senior levels, with all the sides, including the Israeli government, with regard to our coverage," he told his hosts.
Two years later, in November 2005, the director-general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, visited Israel where he held a face-to-face meeting with its then prime minister, Ariel Sharon. According to Guy Adams of the Independent,
Although the diplomatic visit was not publicised [in the UK], it has been seized upon in Israel as evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intends to build bridges with the country's political class.
Sources at the Beeb also suspect that it heralds a "softening" to the corporation's unofficial editorial line on the Middle East.
"This was the first visit of its kind by any serving director general, so it's clearly a significant development," I'm told.
So, it was not without reason that British Health Minister Ben Bradshaw – of all people – urged the BBC to stand up to the Israeli authorities occasionally" and to broadcast the charities’ appeal for Gaza.
Nor was it fantasy on the part of Tony Benn when he said:
I never thought I would live to see [the BBC] refuse to broadcast a humanitarian appeal on the grounds that it was controversial. I know why it is – because [Tzipi] Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, has said there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
But what kind of management would sell the soul of an internationally-respected broadcaster such as the BBC for the sake of a few advertising pennies?
This brings us to the second fundamental reason for the BBC's tilt towards Israel. That is perhaps where Mark Thompson’s ideology – or bias – comes in. According to a BBC insider quoted in the Independent, "Not many people know this, but Mark [Thompson] is actually a deeply religious man. He's a Catholic, but his wife is Jewish, and he has a far greater regard for the Israeli cause than some of his predecessors."
There you have it!"
The BBC’s pact with Israel
You people have forgotten that Britain has a more old-fashioned political structure than the USA, with substantial and carefully maintained mock-feudal elements. In other words, our ruling class is integrated by marriages between the rich and the supposedly aristocratic. This has been the case for three hundred years, and results in an extremely ingrown judeo-masonic elite which controls top jobs.
Or just possibly because despite the best efforts of the producers of the film to contain themselves, they just couldn't resist throwing in "Israeli killing fields" and a picture of a kid about to throw a rock at a tank. It's on youtube btw.
They were so close. Apart from that, it was heavy handed about the suffering, but not overtly blaming Israel for damage that is ultimately the fault of Hamas. But they just couldn't resist throwing in a bit of anti-Israel propaganda. Nice.
There's no mention of "Israeli killing fields" in the version I saw. Nor any picture of a tank.
This is ultimately about using intentional provocation and unofficial mass media control to create the preconditions for global thought crimes legislation, according to which, obviously, any criticism of Jews, Judaism, zion, zionism, etc., will be prosecutable by remote control, as 'hate crime' and 'giving aid and comfort to terrorists'.
Hi Thom
missed you on the Gandhi thread old mate. Could you drop back there, just for a mo'? You asked me some questions, which I answered. I have one waiting there for you. I would hate to think you were avoiding it; I had an idea you might have the courage of your convictions, such as they are.
If you rememember, in 2003 British cameraman James Miller was murdered by the IDF. British Tom Hurndall of the ISM (sending out photographs from Gaza) was murdered by the IDF. British Ian Hook had been killed in 2002. In November of 2003 the BBC ran a documentary on the Miller, Hurndall and Corrie deaths. All three were killed within a 6 week period within a fairly small radius in Gaza. All three were documenting IDF activities. link to realnews247.com
Former American Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer told our family that the IDF frequently complained of the ISM activity in the Occupied Territories and per FOIA it is clear that the American Consulate had on several occasions in 2002/2003 taken issue with the Israeli treatment of ISM members.
If one remembers that bad press is one of the things that Israel and its friends most want to control, it should come as no surprise that a friendly effort to get someone from BBC to Israel was successful in 2003.
One interesting note: British Channel 4 ran a documentary/movie? on Tom Hurndall in 2008. Currently, at the German AvanteGarde film festival a documentary entitled "Rachel" is being screened. In 2008 James Miller's family was reportedly receiving 2 million pounds for his death…but according to former Senator Joe Biden's staff it was not clear that this had happened….so the bad press goes on for the Israelis…this reminds me that in April of 2003 an op-ed appeared in the Des Moines Register written by an employee of the Israeli Consulate in Chicago that implied that ISM was linked to terrorists…this after a Des Moines Register columnist had written a generally sympathetic column about Rachel Corrie.
So again, 2003 was a period of time where there was unfavorable press occurring in both the U.S and Britain….I suspect damage control was in operation.
who have probably accused the BBC of being biased
The BBC has been a main targets in the UK for a long time now. The usual complain, unbalanced, biased, too far on the left.
I shouldn't change to a plural without rereading the whole sentence first.
but not overtly blaming Israel for damage that is ultimately the fault of Hamas.
That is a very convenient excuse from an army perspective. The most easy thing to watch is of course the house were whoever is targeted lives. You simply need to tell the world: these bad guys use the Palestinians as shields. Take care that nobody notices that they actually simply return to their homes, their families. There is no army for the "enemy force" to go to after all. At least none that I am aware of. Frontlines, troops, the usual war scenario.
I think congress should jack up the taxes on our trailer trash to give Israel more support. Then, congress should take those trailers away via the IRS, sell them for scrap metal, and give those proceeds to the nearest local Jewish school to supplement the 90% federal dollars
going to those schools via the Homeland Security legislation.
Good idea. Please send in your voluntary donation today.
Your correspondents have plainly never a member of the British media class. Thompson (Stonyhurst, Merton, Isis, the Beeb) didn't get where he has by pleasing British Jews. The Jewish angle is Michael Grade, a man who could make or break Thompson in L.A.