BBC staff: we're forced to do pro-Israel PR

>Wanting Israel to exist because the world has shown it will not allow Jews to be safe anywhere else does not make someone manipulated by a foreign power.

Is this an alt account? This is basically the exact wording as another comment flagged minutes ago.

It's possible to believe that both October 7th and the subsequent genocide of Palestinians are horrific.

It's the duty of the press to report on these horrors in an unbiased and impartial manner.

> You few bleeding heart lefties

Ad hominems aren't arguments, fyi

You can be very much in favor of Israel the country existing, and even defending itself, while still being opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza.

I have not seen credible people call such a stance "being manipulated by the Jews".

You leapt to at least 3 conclusions in only two sentences. That's talent.

1. "The world" is too broad of an audience to indict.

2. "Anywhere else" does not necessitate the endless support of a rogue state.

3. Israeli statehood is a Zionist matter with a highly mixed opinion among Jews (especially under the current Likud admin).

The simple truth is there are a lot of zionists in powerful positions both in terms of governmental and monetary. Open wikipedia and look up cabinets and powerful people in US government since WW2. Pay attention to their ethnicity; even if half are zionists, that's a lot of people.

One theory is that an abundance of American Christians believe in dispensational premillennialism[0], which rebukes orthodox Judaism in the hopes of returning Christ. Many dispensationalists (including Issac Newton[1]) attempted to interpret the Bible as a function of divine will, and argued that the foundation of Israel is directly imperative due to the prophecy of Daniel. This seems to go against the majority orthodox Judaism interpretation that the Third Temple (as well as the return of Christ) is willed by God alone and not predetermined conditions that men can control.

It's a bit out-there, but unfortunately I can't write-off DJT accepting it all at face-value. He's got conspicuous in-laws and an awfully weird track-record writing policy for the Levant. A religious conviction to defend Israel on behalf of his savior seems to slot rather neatly into his internal belief system.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism#Dispensationa...

[1] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16878

Like Qatar?

[flagged]

> the father of the child narrator’s son

this was confusing but I think it's supposed to just be "father of the child narrator." Also kind of weird they (the original parent link, it is in the bbc article) didn't name the documentary (maybe it's common knowledge to their audience?).

Apologies for the oversight. However I feel the author's phrasing "hysterical pro-Israel campaign" to downplay their concerns is telling.

Where?

That, or they’re doing a bad job and excusing it as balance.

Bob Vylan said "death to the IDF." He didn't call for the death of Israelis. It's the difference between saying "death to the RMP" in Ireland during the troubles versus calling for the deaths of British people themselves.

You can disagree with Mr. Vylan or that the BBC should have cut the broadcast but let's not misrepresent the situation.

Wasn't it calling for death to a military force leading a campaign of total war, and not a death call against Israelis in general?

Like nobody would say "death to the Khmer Rouge" is a death call against Cambodians. It technically would be, since it was Cambodians in the Khmer Rouge who were killing innocent children, but it's a specific subset of Cambodians (the Khmer Rouge) and only those who were actually doing the killing.

The second paragraph from your link says the calls were to the “IDF”.

In a meta sense, yes, but in practice it’s mostly just a large collection of journalists and editors, real humans, working in a chaotic information space where there’s a large variety of angles and sources being put out at all times depending on the context.

It’s equally easy to cherry pick this sort of thing to build a narrative of some ulterior agenda. Especially given the high pace that news demands in the social media age.

What gets covered could simply be who a journalist happened to talked to the past week or what is trending on social media that will get clicks.

and that's why you don't listen to only a single source of news.

Find multiple, ideally both geographic as well as political alignment.

Learn to discern what is a fact, and what is opinion presented as fact, and learn to read critically - such as question if there would be any omissions, or misrepresentations of facts to make persuasions. Learn to dissect the works, such as dramatic music and literary methods of persuasion, and how it affects the reader's perceptions.

All of this was taught in highschool literary criticism classes - just on old books and such, rather than modern material. But the same exact lessons could've been applied. Except people merely either half-assed those classes and use cliff notes, or just straight skipped them - leading to today's world where most adults are unable to critically examine the media they consume.

The self-described mission of the Centre For Media Monitoring is "Promoting Fair And Responsible Reporting Of Muslims And Islam", so they might be slightly biased...

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]