Defending the BBC

I agree with you, the BBC is on-the-whole a good thing, and we'd only really realise this if it stopped and we didn't have it any more.

And, TBH, I think that other news agencies, especially the Daily Mail, are out to get it. They would've criticised it if it had broadcasted the appeal, saying that it was 'breaking impartiality laws' or some such nonsense.

Although I think it may have lost its way a bit, with programs like Strictly Come Dancing or whatever. That type of show should only be made my commercial channels like ITV or Channel 4 or Sky or whatever.

Are you alone in your thinking? Probably not.

It would be ludicrous to think that any news broadcasting station are completely unbiased, everyone has an agenda.
While I agree that the BBC are generally a 'moderately' good news organisation, the extent of what they show and are willing to say is in most cases disproportionate to what is actually happening, Ghazza is a perfect example of this but on a much larger scale.

Are you suggesting perhaps that in the grand scheme of things, that the fact that the BBC have chosen not to broadcast the DEC charity appeal has had its advantages?
Ironically enough it may have made people more aware of the current situation, although I doubt its made them empathise with the palestinians any more.

I don't think there have been many broadcasts at all that have shown the true extent of the damage in Gaza.

My defence of the BBC point turned out more specific (and lame) than it was meant to be. There have been other times where people have been scathing towards the BBC - some documentaries on Muslims/people of south asian origin, the Iraq coverage including the Hutton enquiry etc etc.

It is easy to poke holes, but it is harder to fill the role that it does IMO.

@ Ya'qub - Channel 4 is a public broadcaster (albeit with ads, comercial aspects). It is not owned by a private media company (but this could change in the future.) and its writ is to be a counterbalance to the BBC and challenge the views of the public. It does a very good job of this most of the time.

But wasn't the BBC saying that Hamas took over the Gaza strip a few months ago, whci is a load of rubbish.

An example of what the BBC does for us for free that no other broadcaster would ever do, unless it could get profit from it somehow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/28/bbc-digitalmedia

This, alone justifies my licence fee (although I don't pay one, cos I don't live in the UK!).

It justifies the one I'll pay next year! Insha'Allah.

[quote=The Lamp]But wasn't the BBC saying that Hamas took over the Gaza strip a few months ago, whci is a load of rubbish.[/quote]

It is?

I thought that Hamas were in charge of the Gaza strip?

No, Hamas was elected and apparently the BBC were saying as if they forcefully took over from Fatah.

BBC is as reliable as george bush

yes they are better than fox and CNN but once you watch al jazeerah and Press TV you realise how bias they are. Even their terminology is biased as pointed our by former MP Tony Benn.

the BBC like to think theyre neutral but from their reporting its obvious some of their reporting is anti-muslims, islamophobic, pro-israel

YOU has fallen in love with BBC as if its his long lost brother!

Criticism is allowed, but not hate speech. The BBC, like any other corporation, should not have immunity from criticism. They need to account for their mistakes. I very much doubt many are condemning the BBC in it's entirity. I suppose some get caught up in a heat of things. But refusing to air the DEC appeal is unjustifiable bearing in mind that they have aired similar ones in the past.

The BBC should be held to account for the mistakes that they make. We should and need to air our disagreements. Its for practical development. They are not above the licence payers.

On a side note, I always enjoy watching the channel 4 news as I find their reporting much more imparcial, and less staged than the BBC.

[quote=Amal]

On a side note, I always enjoy watching the channel 4 news as I find their reporting much more imparcial, and less staged than the BBC.[/quote]

Yeah, Channel 4 is by FAR the best!

[quote=Amal]I very much doubt many are condemning the BBC in it's entirity.[/quote]

MPAC Had a post on their front page questioning the reason for the existence of the BBC.

[quote]...But refusing to air the DEC appeal is unjustifiable bearing in mind that they have aired similar ones in the past.

The BBC should be held to account for the mistakes that they make. We should and need to air our disagreements. Its for practical development. They are not above the licence payers.[/quote]

Totally agree and well put.

[quote]On a side note, I always enjoy watching the channel 4 news as I find their reporting much more imparcial, and less staged than the BBC.[/quote]

When my TV used to work, I did enjoy their news coverage. One thing I did notice though that set them apart was that they would pick an issue and delve deep into it - deeper than other channels, even the 24 hour news channels.

@ Ed - do you actually prefer Al Jazeera and Press TV to BBC News? Do you not find atleast the former rather... wandery?

[quote=Ya'qub][quote=Amal]

On a side note, I always enjoy watching the channel 4 news as I find their reporting much more imparcial, and less staged than the BBC.[/quote]

Yeah, Channel 4 is by FAR the best![/quote]

But ITV is better!

no what you found but decided not to recognise was the truth!!!!

how do you have the nerve to say they are biased when the only thing the BBC show are pictures that have been edited god knows how many times??

if you want to listen to people who obviously couldn't give a damn then fine it's up to you but you are wrong to do it!!

if the Muslims of this day and age are not going to go and fight jihad and help the ummah in that way...the least you can do if your not even going to bother to do the most is to listen to the right news to listen to the truth and not the over edited version the kuffar feed you!!!

You do realise that all broadcasting is edited?

The aim of a news organisation is not to make you have a gut reaction to an event, but to inform you of what is happening.

While many international news organisations had a tough task over the Gaza attacks - simply because they were on the outside - they did do a good job of calling the Israeli side to task. I never watched much (preferring the 'net for my info), but I did notice that after the first 2/3 days where Israel and its reasons were more or less given the right of coverage, the angle changed to one where the news casters were more and more critical of the Israeli reasoning.

It did well. Maybe not as well as if it had had people on the ground, but that is a different issue.

yes i am aware of the fact the all news is edited however....how can we as Muslims take news from people that make our ummahs suffering look less then it actually is????
there is no way you can watch bbc news and get the full picture of what is really happening to our brothers and sisters in palestine.
now if you speak in Arabic and you have the Arabic aljazeera then i would highly recommend that you take your news from them...then like that you can hear the what is happening from the mouths of Palestinians them selves!!!

Showing dead bodies etc on the news will have the effect of making people less sympathetic after a while.

There is much suffering out there, but by knowing all about it and not being able to act, people lose their softness.

The BBC is doing a good job by not demanding a visceral reaction to all news items. There is much suffering in the world and not all of it is in Gaza.

The average life expectancy of people in Zimbabwe is in the mid 30's. Random fact, but how bad must their plight be for that to be the case?

there was no logic in what you have just said....how can showing those pictures of dead children and crying mothers and fathers make people have less sympathy for them....that is just such a stupid thing to say...sorry but it truly is!!!

you will have sympathy when you see one. you will have sympathy when you see two. maybe even when you see twenty.

But at some point it will become the same old thing. Another grieving family. A statistic.

As humans there is only so much sympathy in us - after which its all the same thing over and over again.

Did you notice how over the three weeks of the current conflict people managed to get bored? I did. People have their own lives to live too.

@ Kenza and You:

Yes and no.

More pictures of suffering increase the distress of the viewer and forces them to act on a sunconscious level to limit that distress. They will take actions to remove themselves from the sympathetic pain and anxiety that such picture evoke. I am not saying that they will be shaking with panic and then force themselves to switch off the TV, the reaction is alot more subtle and they will not even no they are in anxiety except for the mild discomfort they feel. Similarly the reaction will be involuntary, and not conscious.
Point being, the will manifest this involuntary reaction as either anger, denial, distancing from the situation or justification. Maybe all of the above. Only the very strong will be patient and this means to observe the suffering without discomfort but to be distressed for the suffering (how do you pull that off?)

Sorry You, but the apathy you describe comes from the justification response. You get the discomfort, the involuntary reaction kicks in and on a subtle level you decide that's the way things are, "it is outside of my reach therefore I am nothing to do with it. It is not a part of my reality (in the more extreme aspect.)" I do this and I'm guessing Kenza does it too sometimes because its subtle and when push really comes to shove, your own personal comfort will take priority over anyone elses, Allah built us that way.

I think what we have to say is, "a person better than me would care and I admit that these pictures make me uncomfortable so I don't want to look at them. But I will look and remember that the people in these photos have known happiness as well as suffering." And if we can't look at their suffering we should atleast remember that they exist and that they know happiness as well as suffering. This will keep them alive in our hearts InshaAllah.

@ you

maybe to people that think it's fine for a sister to live on her own....or who doesn't think hijab is fardh...or who doesn't think that this country in a kuffar or munafiq based county...but to me to see dead children to see my brothers and sisters suffering the way they do...there is nothing other then the quran and ahadeeth of out rasool that can soften the heart more....how can you a Muslim look at those things and say that it will stop people being sympathetic towards them.....and even if it did stop people from being sympathetic.....do you think we want their sympathy??? no what we want is for brothers to stand up to our oppressors for our sisters and brothers to be voices for the oppressed!!!

you know what I'm not even going to bother with this anymore......the forum is more rubbish then the magazine is because it keep arguing back with pathetic points....i choose not to be a part of the shambles that is this forum.....
fiamanillah kenza

Do they or do they NOT make sense to you? You have to justify why you feel uncomfortable in your chair, Kenza.

[quote=kenza]@ you

maybe to people that think it's fine for a sister to live on her own....or who doesn't think hijab is fardh...[/quote]

You misunderstand the points I have made in the past. While the Hijab is fardh, the definition has been called into question (but not by much), and its still a persons own responsibility to carry out that fardh.

[quote=kenza]or who doesn't think that this country in a kuffar or munafiq based county...but to me to see dead children to see my brothers and sisters suffering the way they do...there is nothing other then the quran and ahadeeth of out rasool that can soften the heart more....[/quote]

I am a firm believer that there will be justice for all crimes. However that justice may not happen in this lifetime.

[quote=kenza]how can you a Muslim look at those things and say that it will stop people being sympathetic towards them...[/quote]

There is only so much misery a person can take. after that it is the same old same old. Or you just change the channel and watch something "funny" instead.

[quote=kenza]and even if it did stop people from being sympathetic.....do you think we want their sympathy??? no what we want is for brothers to stand up to our oppressors for our sisters and brothers to be voices for the oppressed!!![/quote]

Sometimes standing up causes more issues. Revolutions generally have a downside too and may not always give the best to the oppressed.

But this thread is about the BBC and their coverage/reason/purpose/whatever for existence. While it may not have shown dead bodies scattered around, it did show of some of the damage caused, and it may have been more tasteful in that. Showing dead bodies does not mean better coverage.

[quote=kenza]you know what I'm not even going to bother with this anymore......the forum is more rubbish then the magazine is because it keep arguing back with pathetic points....i choose not to be a part of the shambles that is this forum.....
fiamanillah kenza[/quote]

and that is a shame. Either way, salaams and all the best.

IAEA head boycotts BBC over Gaza

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has cancelled interviews with the BBC over its decision not to broadcast a charity appeal for Gaza.

Mohamed ElBaradei believed that the BBC's decision broke "the rules of basic human decency", his spokeswoman said.

BBC director general Mark Thompson had said airing the appeal would compromise the BBC's impartiality.

In a statement, the BBC said that it regretted Mr ElBaradei's move...

Read more @ BBC News