Continuing from this morning's post I have another troll's comment to comment upon. This one's pretend seriousness does need a thorough fisking.
The comment was made to my
post about Richard Goldstone's recent piece in the New York Times do read my piece now...
Here's the comment I received from the always 'anonymous' with my
comments in italics:
'Paragraph 1: prominence? Yes both were on a website read by millions each day, so I'd say that's self explanatory.
Surely you are not really that stupid.
Yes they were both on the same website, but were they given equal prominence? Were they both headline articles? Leaving website aside, did BBC TV & radio news give equal prominence? Of course not - the BBC gave far more prominence to the original report than the recantation.
Paragraph 2: I don't understand why you'd come to that conclusion. Again, it was an Op-Ed piece and no matter what angle Goldstone might have taken, it is absolutely not worthy of coverage by the BBC. A man gives his opinion on events in the Middle East. So what? You blog about it, there are opinion pieces in all national newspapers that express pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli viewpoints, should they all be covered by the BBC? Short answer, no.
Because its true and anyone should be able to see that. Absolutely the BBC do not have to report any op-ed piece but when it is by someone whose original flawed comments they reported over and over again whilst giving only grudging and minimal coverage of his later recanting, then I would like to think the BBC would want to report it. I firmly believe that if Richard Goldstone had written a piece declaring Israel to be an apartheid state then the BBC would have gleefully reported that South African judge and UN investigator Richard Goldstone had issued a damning analysis of Israel.
Paragraph 3: again, the absence of something is not evidence of bias. Yes, the BBC's coverage isn't perfect, but then you can accuse all media across the globe of the same thing. What I can say for certain is that the BBC has categorically NOT "tied itself" to Islamists. It's preposterous to suggest such a thing - what would the BBC achieve for doing this? Exemptions from Sharia law once the Islamists take over the UK?
You are wrong, the BBC have very much tied themselves to Islamism, both in the UK and beyond. Why they have done so is more of a puzzle, as Islamists hate homosexuals and women's rights, things that the BBC usually hold so dear. However the BBC hate Israel and the non-Obama USA even more, so their enemies enemy is their friend. It could be argued re your last suggestion that the BBC are the 'state broadcaster' and so may be useful tools for Islamists - but that is not something that I wish to get into now.
I'm being deliberately daft with that suggestion, but you look on the internet and you see blogs from supporters of the Palestinian cause accusing the BBC of being pro-Israeli and suggesting the BBC will somehow benefit from being "tied to" Israel and Judaism. Again, the accusation is of selective reporting, so the only conclusion to make is that you're looking at the BBC's reporting through your own biased perspective, as are bloggers who take the opposing view to you on these matters.
Islamists and their supporters accuse anyone who doesn't actively support the total destruction of Israel as biased in favour of Israel. Just because the BBC is criticised form both sides does not mean they are following an unbiased line; one side could be right and one wrong! Oddly that is the case in this instance.
I only hope you can realise that you're doing this, and adjust your posts accordingly before you mislead some of your readers into believing things that aren't true.
I receive no public funding, or indeed any funding at all, and so do not have to be impartial; the BBC however have a duty to be impartial. Although I am not impartial I do not post things that are not true. The BBC however post plenty of anti-Israel articles that are not true and I will continue to point out these lies as well as the truths that the BBC ignore.
I have wasted valuable time on a Saturday night posting this rebuttal, I do not intend to waste any more on such as you again.
