Why Sri Lanka?

The 6pm BBC Radio 4 news had a piece about an upcoming Sri Lankan election. 

That's odd I thought, but then the Muslim angle was explained and the reason for airing the news was clear.

The BBC's obsession with matters Muslim is quite incredible.

Why don't Africans matter to the BBC?

I have blogged before about the disproportional coverage the BBC give to every minor Israel/Palestinian story when compared to the coverage they allocate to African stories. I was reminded of this when I cam across this piece that revealed that:

'More than 300 men, women and children were raped during a four-day assault by rebel militia in the Democratic Republic of Congo, double the number first reported, the United Nations said yesterday. '

Quite a big story, yet it is not even referenced from the BBC's main news page. Imagine the wall to wall coverage if the Israeli army had been found guilty of just one rape of a Palestinian...

Here's something I wrote on this matter last year:

'"What are these numbers?

5.4 million

400,000

65,000

3,400

1,000


Any ideas?


Well:
5.4 million is the number of people killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo since a 1998 civil war began. That war continues today despite numerous peace treaties.

400,000 is the number of people killed in the Darfur region of the Sudan since a 2003 outbreak of violence between the government-backed Janjaweed militias and the secular "rebels" of the region. Approximately 100 additional people were killed there a few of weeks ago. Fighting continues in Darfur today.

65,000 is the number of Sri Lankans killed since the late 1980s, most of which have been civilians. During the war in Gaza, the Sri Lankan government forces overran the last stronghold of the Tamil Tigers -- a group considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government -- at the expense of dozens of civilians. Approximately 50,000 government troops are currently advancing through the jungle, taking aim at the rebels.

3,400 is a conservative estimate of the number of Palestinians killed by the Jordanian government in the span of 11 days during the Black September Jordanian civil war of 1970. Palestinian estimates claimed more than 20,000 dead.

1,000 is the number of Palestinians killed as of Jan. 15 in Israel's current war of self-defense against Hamas, the vast majority of which have been terrorists.


Yet it is Israel that is condemned by the U.N., the Vatican, and the rest of the world. It is Jews that are attacked all over Europe."'

So what accounts for the disparity of coverage by the BBC? Do the BBC not care about African & Tamil lives as much as Palestinians? Do the BBC have an anti-Israel agenda that supersedes the rights of others?

Reporting on Sri Lanka a contrast with Israel

Not referred to on the BBC news home page (UK version) but rather hidden away on the South Asia area is this report that:

"At least 378 people have been killed by fierce shelling from the Sri Lankan army in the past 24 hours, a health official has told the BBC.

The doctor, working in the northern conflict zone, said 1,122 others had been injured - and more bodies were on beaches and by the sides of roads.

The army denies shelling the designated "safe zone" for civilians, and blames any deaths on Tamil Tiger rebels.

The claims are impossible to verify as reporters are banned from the war zone.

But the BBC's Charles Haviland, in Colombo, says a steady stream of information coming from the area suggests that civilians are being killed. "

Why is this being reported so quietly whilst an equivalent incident in Israel/Gaza would have been headline news subjected to endless coverage and vituperation?


Thanks to Biased-BBC for the spot.

BBC bias in the treatment of stories about Sri Lanka and Israel

Ignoring for now the comparative rights and wrongs of Sri Lankas fight against the Tamil Tigers and Israel's fight against assorted Palestinian terrorists one thing is abundantly clear. The BBC's coveageof the Sri Lankan army's alleged killing of 91 civilians in a temporary hospital in a very different way to the way they cover any attack by Israel under similar circumstances. The headline is "Hospital 'hit by Sri Lankan army' " leaving some doubt over whether the attack was even by the Sri Lankan army, no such doubt is allowed to intrude into the BBC's regular demonisation of the Israeli army and indeed Israel. The first line of the report "Sri Lankan military says it has not been using heavy weapons in the area" lets the reader know that there is some confusion and two sides to the story, I cannot think of an equivalent story about Israel that gives the Israeli side of the case so early in the reporting. THe claim of 91 deaths is couched in cautious language

"The Sri Lankan army has killed 91 people at a makeshift hospital inside a civilian safe zone in the last two days, two doctors have told the BBC.

The doctors said bombardments from the army had killed 64 people on Saturday, including patients, their relatives and bystanders in Mullivaikal.

About 87 people were injured. Another 27 people reportedly died on Friday."

And then the Sri Lankan army is allowed another rebuttal;

"The army has denied bombing the hospital, saying that Tamil Tiger rebels carried out suicide attacks."

On the BBC one Country is always guilty unless proved otherwise and that is Israel, other countries are allowed a degree of presumption of innocence.


Of course there is another huge difference between he coverage of this story and that of any similar Israeli attack. This story is Web site front page news but not the top story, if it had been Israel then it would have been the lead and every newscast would have been full of the usual suspects fulminating against Israel's iniquities.

The BBC reporting Sri Lanka and Israel

Once again a big story breaks in Sri Lanka and the BBC report it:

"The Tamil Tigers have accused the Sri Lankan government of killing about 1,000 civilians and injuring many more during its military offensive.

The government has denied the allegations, in turn accusing the rebel group of targeting civilians. "

However the page doesn't even appear as a link on the UK news page. Somewhat different to the huge coverage of any anti-Israel story.

Interestingly the video on the BBC page is credited thus "Footage released by pro-Tamil group Media 2000/Act Now". I don't recall the BBC being so keen to credit Palestinian groups for the Pallygate style videos that they show so readily.


Whilst we look at BBC news reporting inconsistencies, here's another. The BBC hide away another report of inter-group murder in a place far away. But as it is black Africans killing black Africans and no evil Israelis are involved, the BBC don't think the British people need to know.

The BBC shilling for Islam and denigrating Israel; it's what they do.

The Tamil protests and the BBC coverage, as contrasted with the BBC's coverage of the Israel/Palestinian conflict and others

I listened to a lot of BBC radio news yesterday, as I zigzagged my way across London, and I was struck by the coverage of the Tamil protests in London against the Sri Lankan government. Out of practically nowhere the BBC were giving prominence to this demonstration and protesters were talking of thousands of deaths and of the Sri Lankan government allegedly bombing civilians. The BBC are today reporting that:

"The United Nations believes up to 150,000 civilians are trapped in northern Sri Lanka and the Tamils claim they are being subjected to human rights abuses.... The United Nations says more than 2,800 civilians may have been killed and 7,000 others injured in the fighting in the north-east in the last two months. The Sri Lankan government disputes these figures."

I say "practically nowhere" because if you relied upon the BBC news for your knowledge of world affairs the Sri Lankan civil war might well have passed you by. You would be very well informed of every Israeli incursion, you would have heard endless coverage of claims that the Israelis were bombing innocent civilians, you would have heard many tear-jerking reports from the "hell-hole that is Gaza", you would have heard the coverage of every claim of Israeli brutality and of course you would have heard from all the pro-Palestinian groups whose job it is to bad-mouth Israel; all of this coverage would have been lead by BBC reporters who see their role to denigrate Israel and protect the reputation of the Palestinian terrorist organisations.

In February I reported upon Baroness Deech's comments in the House of Lords:

"No one can accuse this House of not focusing on the distressing situation in Gaza. In the past 12 months, there have been 161 Questions and Statements about Israel, Gaza and the Palestinians compared with, for example, 33 on Sri Lanka and 24 on Tibet. I mention Sri Lanka in particular because noble Lords will be aware that recently there was a well attended protest in Parliament Square about the terrible attacks on the Tamils, the hospitals under siege, the killing of 70,000 people and the many more thousands who are trapped and displaced from their homes. This has attracted little opprobrium and no calls for the obliteration of Sri Lanka or talk of its brutalisation."

The BBC, so far as I can tell, did not report this speech, I wonder why?

In January I blogged about numbers and asked:

"What are these numbers?

5.4 million

400,000

65,000

3,400

1,000


Any ideas?


Well:
5.4 million is the number of people killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo since a 1998 civil war began. That war continues today despite numerous peace treaties.

400,000 is the number of people killed in the Darfur region of the Sudan since a 2003 outbreak of violence between the government-backed Janjaweed militias and the secular "rebels" of the region. Approximately 100 additional people were killed there a few of weeks ago. Fighting continues in Darfur today.

65,000 is the number of Sri Lankans killed since the late 1980s, most of which have been civilians. During the war in Gaza, the Sri Lankan government forces overran the last stronghold of the Tamil Tigers -- a group considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government -- at the expense of dozens of civilians. Approximately 50,000 government troops are currently advancing through the jungle, taking aim at the rebels.

3,400 is a conservative estimate of the number of Palestinians killed by the Jordanian government in the span of 11 days during the Black September Jordanian civil war of 1970. Palestinian estimates claimed more than 20,000 dead.

1,000 is the number of Palestinians killed as of Jan. 15 in Israel's current war of self-defense against Hamas, the vast majority of which have been terrorists.


Yet it is Israel that is condemned by the U.N., the Vatican, and the rest of the world. It is Jews that are attacked all over Europe."

And in March I mused on the BBC's coverage (or rather lack of coverage) of the war in Sri Lanka:

"Today I read an analysis article on Honest Reporting that expands upon this point, here's the set-up:

"Comparison With Conflict in Sri Lanka

It is extremely appropriate to highlight the BBC's coverage of the Middle East considering the importance that the BBC attaches to the region. During the conflict, the BBC published, on average, 4.5 articles every day dealing with the fighting. In contrast, BBC coverage of the Sri Lankan government's campaign against the Tamil Tigers group -- a conflict that resulted in an estimated 2,000 civilian deaths in January of 2009 -- produced barely one article a day.

According to human rights organizations, the conflict in Sri Lanka includes intentional attacks by both sides on civilians, attacks on hospitals (twenty attacks from December through February alone), and the use of human shields. Yet the BBC gives this conflict, estimated to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, less than one quarter the average daily coverage of the Gaza conflict. If the BBC is going to focus this much on Gaza, it must expect scrutiny of that coverage.""

The BBC world view is oddly biased against Israel; how many other country's leaders indiscretions become headline news on the BBC? The USA, France, Italy, maybe a few others but Israel always. The BBC seem to lose no time in highlighting any story that shows Israel in a negative light and hiding away any positive stories. Millions die in the DRC and the BBC coverage is muted, hundreds of thousands die in the Sudan and the BBC coverage is hardly wall to wall, tens of thousands die in Sri Lanka and the BBC coverage is minimal, thousands die in conflicts all over the world and nary a mention on the BBC; but when one Palestinian is shot as he drives his car at an Israeli police line the BBC cover the story with all due reverence for the Palestinian and plenty of background to show why Israel is in the wrong.

The BBC is institutionally anti-Israel and that is why they are fighting so hard to prevent the Balen report from being published.

The BBC and its reporting of the recent Gaza conflict

Back in January I blogged about the way the BBC (and other media) concentrate on the Israel/Palestinian conflict to the near exclusion of other more deadly conflicts. I asked:

"What are these numbers?

5.4 million

400,000

65,000

3,400

1,000


Any ideas?


Well:
5.4 million is the number of people killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo since a 1998 civil war began. That war continues today despite numerous peace treaties.

400,000 is the number of people killed in the Darfur region of the Sudan since a 2003 outbreak of violence between the government-backed Janjaweed militias and the secular "rebels" of the region. Approximately 100 additional people were killed there a few of weeks ago. Fighting continues in Darfur today.

65,000 is the number of Sri Lankans killed since the late 1980s, most of which have been civilians. During the war in Gaza, the Sri Lankan government forces overran the last stronghold of the Tamil Tigers -- a group considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government -- at the expense of dozens of civilians. Approximately 50,000 government troops are currently advancing through the jungle, taking aim at the rebels.

3,400 is a conservative estimate of the number of Palestinians killed by the Jordanian government in the span of 11 days during the Black September Jordanian civil war of 1970. Palestinian estimates claimed more than 20,000 dead.

1,000 is the number of Palestinians killed as of Jan. 15 in Israel's current war of self-defense against Hamas, the vast majority of which have been terrorists.


Yet it is Israel that is condemned by the U.N., the Vatican, and the rest of the world. It is Jews that are attacked all over Europe."

Today I read an analysis article on Honest Reporting that expands upon this point, here's the set-up:

"Comparison With Conflict in Sri Lanka

It is extremely appropriate to highlight the BBC's coverage of the Middle East considering the importance that the BBC attaches to the region. During the conflict, the BBC published, on average, 4.5 articles every day dealing with the fighting. In contrast, BBC coverage of the Sri Lankan government's campaign against the Tamil Tigers group -- a conflict that resulted in an estimated 2,000 civilian deaths in January of 2009 -- produced barely one article a day.

According to human rights organizations, the conflict in Sri Lanka includes intentional attacks by both sides on civilians, attacks on hospitals (twenty attacks from December through February alone), and the use of human shields. Yet the BBC gives this conflict, estimated to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, less than one quarter the average daily coverage of the Gaza conflict. If the BBC is going to focus this much on Gaza, it must expect scrutiny of that coverage."

And here are their conclusions:

"The BBC's coverage of the Gaza conflict painted a picture of an Israeli attack that intentionally targeted civilians and may have included war crimes. Specifically:

*
The BBC relied upon Palestinians who were given the opportunity to make dubious accusations without any supporting evidence.
*
The BBC published image after image of Palestinians suffering under Israeli attacks while giving readers few views of the impact that the conflict was having on Israeli civilians living under a constant and daily rocket barrage.
*
The most damning Palestinian statements about the Israeli operations were highlighted on the side of the articles, while Israeli statements were almost never treated in the same way.

We have said before that as one of the world's top news sources, the BBC has a tremendous responsibility to report accurately and fairly. While the BBC claims to be impartial, it has done everything possible to deflect scrutiny of its work from being made public. Right now, a pending lawsuit in the House of Lords seeks to compel the BBC to make public an internal review that allegedly found that its Middle East reporting was biased against Israel. "

Do read the whole Honest Reporting article and pass it on. The BBC's bias against Israel is real and dangerous; it needs exposing.

Where are the protests?

Why does Israel's actions attract the comments, the protests and the opprobrium? David Aaronovitch in The Times writes

"Last week the Pakistani authorities reached a ceasefire with the insurgents, part of which is to agree that girls will no longer have the right to go to school in Swat. Where are the student occupiers and the calls for sanctions?"

And here's

Baroness Deech in the House of Lords this week: "No one can accuse this House of not focusing on the distressing situation in Gaza. In the past 12 months, there have been 161 Questions and Statements about Israel, Gaza and the Palestinians compared with, for example, 33 on Sri Lanka and 24 on Tibet. I mention Sri Lanka in particular because noble Lords will be aware that recently there was a
well attended protest in Parliament Square about the terrible attacks on the Tamils, the hospitals under siege, the killing of 70,000 people and the many more thousands who are trapped and displaced from their homes. This has attracted little opprobrium and no calls for the obliteration of Sri Lanka or talk of its brutalisation."

What is so peculiar and specific about Israel and the Palestinians that it dominates our news and attracts so much attention. Is it as simple as anti-Semitism?