TheLady far be it from me to accuse someone I don't know much about of
bias, but I get the impression that if the situation had been reversed, and
you had seen and heard a strongly pro-
Israel, anti-
Palestine report on
the BBC, you would not have produced such a vitriolic writeup.
However be that as it may, the fact remains that the BBC occupies a unique
status in the world of
news reporting. It is not funded by
private capital
so has no
proprietor to kowtow to. It does not carry advertisements so never
needs to keep its
advertisers sweet. It isn't funded exclusively by the
Government so doesn't need to bow down to the
current political orthodoxy
of whichever party is currently in
power over at
Westminster. It's funded
by every person in the
UK who owns a
radio or
television set, through
a
compulsory taxation system (the
TV licence).
So what's the implication of all this? Well, with no single body or
organisation controlling its money the BBC (theoretically at least) has the
freedom to report the complete truth. In reality the very nature of
journalism and editors will mean that there is always a political choice
made as to what appears on the BBC News and what doesn't; whether there is
political bias is another question. However assuming that TheLady is
correct, you have to ask yourself why. What purpose would be gained by the
BBC in attacking Israel in such a way: is Greg Dyke (current controller
of the BBC) a closet Palestinian nationalist? Are the journalists hoping to
get out into western Jerusalem and start shooting at Israeli troops?
I think it's unlikely.
I would like to suggest that if the BBC is reporting
things from a different angle to most of the western media it is not an
indication of bias on the part of the BBC, but rather an indication that much
of the rest of the media feels a need to justify US foreign policy in the
Middle East, whereas the BBC can try to offer just a glimpse of things
from another point of view.