Further to this piece I have written to the BBC asking how they explain the two widely differing answers to my original complaint.
I await a response, or maybe two!
'Thank you for your reply and for the admission that there was something very wrong with the first map. I still do not see why the second map could not have been either larger in size or of a smaller scale to show the true border situation but I guess that is something that we will not agree on.
What does interest me is this. You have apologised for the first map, for which I gracefully thank you. However on 17 August a reply from the same group email address addressed my complaint about the first map like this:
'Thank you for your e-mail and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. The first map is not intended to be an accurate geographic or political representation but to show the location of Gaza and where this particular incident happened. Had Egypt been involved in any way in this story, the map would have included Egypt.'
Why did the first responder so answer my complaint if you believe the map was 'plain shoddy work, for which we apologise. It should mark Egypt.'?
How can the BBC send two such different responses to the same complaint?
Which response from the BBC should I accept as being the BBC's actual view on this matter?
Kind regards
NotaSheep maybeaGoat'
9 comments:
Oh, I appear to have stumbled into an edition of Pedant's Corner.
Clearly whoever wrote the first complaint didn't research it properly, the second one is more realistic. Simple explanation.
Why you're bothering the BBC with such trivialities I do not know.
So your explanation is that the first responder hadn't researched the matter properly and just fired off a go away type response. And you think that's acceptable do you?
I think we deserve better from the our licence fee than lies, obfuscation and sloppiness.
Unbelievable stupidity and incompetence from the BBC. Is it £4 billion per year ?
Anonymous may think it is a trivial matter , but I and many other people believe the BBC's anti-semitism is far from trivial and has serious security implications for the West as well as Israel.
It is basic geography, if you show a country on a map, to name all the bordering countries.
Even if we assume it was an error, it is still shoddy.
Sorry Grant - but what about this was anti-semitic?
Well some people , including myself, believe that the BBC's hatred of Israel stems from anti-semitism.
One manifestation is the reluctance in many cases to remind people that Gaza has a border with Egypt.
So, Grant, let me get this straight...you think that not showing Gaza's border with Egypt is anti-Semitic? That's about as sensible as saying that not showing the border with Egypt is anti-pyramidian. Typical BBC, always trying to cover up the achievements of the Pharaohs.....
Anon: Grant is away at present so I will reply on his behalf.
The point I think Grant is making is the same one that I have been making and that you seem to be incapable of understanding.
The BBC portray the poor Palestinians of Gza as being under siege by the big bully Israel. This portrayal builds up hatred of Israel and by extension of all Jews. By showing a map of Gaza and identifying Israel and Gaza but not Egypt, and cutting the map off in such a way that it is not clear that there is another country bordering Gaza it leaves the casual viewer of that map none the wiser that Egypt also borders Gaza and therefore that the blockade of Gaza by Israel must also be being enforced by Egypt.
That is the point I was making to the BBC in my original post. That is why I was distinctly unimpressed by the initial BBC response and why I chased the BBC re the discrepancy between the two responses. I believe that is also the background to Grant's claim of anti-Semitism at the BBC, if I am wrong he will hopefully correct me on his return to these shores.
Now do you understand our points or are you really a) a troll, b) a flamer or c) an idiot? You could of course also be a combination of two or more of the above...
I understand the points perfectly well,, I just disagree with such wide of the mark conclusions.
The fact remains that while the initial response was rubbish, that in of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Whilst Egypt does of course participate in a blockade of Gaza, it cannot be argued that this is not enforced to the same extent that Israel enforces it. I don't recall, for example, Egypt being involved in the (at best) heavy-handed Operation Cast Lead.
On the subject of the map specifically, yes it should have shown Egypt, but it's not vital to the understand of the situation as a whole.
I disagree, without understanding that Gaza has a border with another country, an Arab country, one could believe that Israel controlled all access to and from Gaza and so could do what they wanted with Gaza.
Post a Comment