Mark Thomson and the Kosher BBC

Source
Oi I was so happy with the BBC (Building Bridges Corporation) reaction to the Gaza appeal so I went to check who is looking after us in this wonderful organization and I found such a lovey goy named Mark Thomson who really loves to build bridges with us. Here is what we say about him in our Wiki'le on line encyclopedia.

'In November 2005, Thomson traveled with his Jewish wife to Israel, where he held direct talks with Sharon, which were intended to let the BBC build bridges with Israel'.

This is so nice... that the BBC loves to build bridges while we destroy bridges, demolish houses and inflict genocide the the Palestinian people.

It is a shame he is not a proper Jew but he is trying hard and he is getting close. According to the Independent, sources at the BBC say '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."

Why the BBC is wrong over the Gaza appeal

• Editorial


• The Observer, Sunday 25 January 2009


• Article history

That the population of Gaza is experiencing a humanitarian crisis is a matter of fact, not political hypothesis. That the crisis follows directly as a result of action by the Israeli Defence Force is also hardly a matter for speculation. On what grounds then, might the BBC judge a charitable appeal on behalf of the people of Gaza to be politically partisan?

Director general Mark Thompson last week decided not to allow a broadcast by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), an umbrella group of charities, calling for donations to its Gaza relief fund. His reason, supported by chief operating officer Caroline Thomson, is that such a broadcast would risk undermining public confidence in the corporation's impartiality.

That might feasibly be true if it could be shown, or even credibly argued, that the broadcast was anything other than a genuine humanitarian appeal; if there was evidence that the DEC was intent on mobilising people's charitable instincts for some covert political end. But there is no such evidence.

An alternative interpretation, and one that is ultimately much more damaging to the BBC's reputation, is that any humanitarian intervention in Gaza, by definition, expresses a political position in the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In other words, collecting charity for Palestinians is a kind of hostility to Israel.

By that logic, there can never be victims in a war zone, even among civilians, since to designate anyone as such would offend one of the combatant sides. That is patently absurd and inhumane.

Mr Thompson's decision is also quite insulting to the BBC's audience. It implies that viewers might fail to distinguish between a charity appeal and a political message, so it is best not to broadcast the former in case it is mistaken for the latter.

Maintaining impartiality in the Middle East conflict has never been easy for the BBC. Israeli and Palestinian groups both regularly accuse the corporation of institutional bias, which is probably a crude indication that, in its journalism, the BBC gets the balance about right. But the decision over the DEC appeal was taken not by journalists, but by managers.

If the BBC now shows the appeal, as it should, it will doubtless be accused of caving in to political pressure. Thus, not for the first time, the corporation has manoeuvred itself into controversy where, whatever its next move, it cannot win. And, not for the first time, the fault lies not in bad journalism, but weak management.