During the recent Egyptian uprising the BBC decided to censor the many stories and images that did not support its own narrative (that the demonstrators were universally peaceful democracy seekers). Thus, for example, the BBC failed to show the many blood curdling anti-Semitic images and interviews (widely available on the internet) prominent among the demonstrators; they failed to cover the story of reporter Lara Logan’s rape by dozens of ‘celebrating’ demonstrators chanting “Jew, Jew” at her, and most of all they covered up the significance and extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood, including the speech made by their fanatical anti-Semitic spiritual leader Al Qaradawi on his ‘victorious’ return from exile.
Now it seems the BBC is covering up the wave of Islamist violence targeted at Coptic Christians and secular Egyptians that have exploded in the last few days. For example, I would have thought that the story of a Muslim mob burning down a church in Helwan would have been prominent on the BBC News, especially as there was widely available and compelling film of it happening. Moreover, the fact that today 10 Christians protesting the church burning were murdered by another Muslim mob also strikes me as being a story of major significance that should be leading the BBC News (rather then being buried deeply in the BBC website and ignored elsewhere). Nor did the story yesterday of the attack by Islamists on secular women in Cairo, who were marching for International Women’s Day, make the BBC News. If even remotely similar violence occurred, let us say in Israel, the BBC News would cover nothing else for several days. So why the double standards?
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
BBC covering up Islamist violence in Egypt
I have just sent the following self-explanatory letter to the BBC.
I have just been reading the history of Christianity in UK. Paganism kept coming back in spite of St David, Augustine etc. Half of UK was still pagan in 633AD, when izlam was making inroads in the Middle East. Even in 700AD with Bede, UK was still half pagan. The current archbishop of Canterbury is a self-proclaimed Druid, which is a fire-worshipping pagan: how can one be a Christian and a pagan/Druid?
ReplyDeleteAlso, my dealings and conversations with members of EDL, lead me to believe that Christianity has never really settled into the psyche of the British and English.Currently, my local paper is writing about how "witchcraft is becoming very popular". I have known this, as in my area of Kent, these shops are on many corners of every town.
Jews have been Jewish for so much longer that is why we are like we are and so-called Christians are just superficially Christian: they are essentially pagan.
This is the book I am reading. Obviously it is not the last word on the subject. But I feel it is a clue.It is short and easy to read.
"How the gospel came to Britain" by Lucy Diamond, Oxford University Press, 1944.
Here is the amazon link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Gospel-came-Britain-Lucy-Diamond/dp/B0007IZJLU
I stumbled across your blog, excellent stuff.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your question, btw, about why the media pays such overwhelming attention to Israel while arab states get a virtual path is that a) Israel is a free and democratic society where dissent is tolerated, b) it's got the highest proliferation of foreign journalists per capita than any other nation in the world, c) most of the world is still virulently anti-Semitic including the Europeans and their media and d) journalists can write whatever the heck they want about Israel while in Israel and not have to worry about icky things like being killed.
Having an open society is a double-edged sword as the Israelis repeatedly find out - paying a heavy price for their tolerance of hostile media.
sorry, meant "virtual pass"
ReplyDelete